Honestly, on that level of absurdity, I will not waste any time entertaining that one. I was hoping for much better discussion, but that is just not
even fun in anyway blowing that one outta the water, trust me. Sorry!

Oh oh, another one of 'those' threads guaranteed to get the ire up of many.

This is an amazingly deep debate and if anyone here has ever experienced any of my prior post, you know where I stand and what I believe concerning
this. I almost died in a car accident back in 2007 and had a VERY FRIGHTENING 'vision' of the spritual realities that consist of Heaven AND Hell.
Now, I can't quantify that experience easily or 'share' it objectively with anyone but it is what it is.
But in case anyone is wondering, Jesus is real, Heaven is real, HELL is real and this 'life' is your one and only chance to choose. Of couse what
you choose and believe (and your behaviour) will determine what you experience AFTER you pass the veil. (For eternity).

That aside, the main contention in the op that I would like to start to address is this one:

1. There are no Roman records of Jesus; there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and the claimed evidence is very weak, late, forged, suspect or
not about Jesus at all. Therefore the historical Jesus never existed.

We will ALL take our last breaths.. believe what you will and at your own peril. Like Joyce Meyers always says.."If I'm wrong, (About Jesus) Oh
well. But if I'm right? Man, LOTS of people are in for the rudest awakening..."

Ok, scrolling halfway down your source page, just because I thought I'd check, we have this quote:

"There is some debate among scholars over the authenticity of paragraph 3. Most scholars believe that the majority of the paragraph is authentic,
with a few crucial sentences inserted later by Christian scribes. Some scholars think that the entire paragraph is a later Christian insertion. A few
scholars believe that the entire passage is indeed authentic, and that Josephus himself wrote it down in the form seen here, without later revision.
(There is another shorter reference to Jesus in 20.9.1(200).)".

I'll tell you why, in my opinion, and I'm sorry I have never had a near-death experience to back up my claims with, just many many hours of research
and soul searching and questioning, there is no concrete evidence that Jesus lived as a HISTORICAL human being. There is none.

And all I am talking about is HISTORICALLY, not spiritually. But that opens a can o worms.....

Start from the beginning. How did it begin, How was it implemented? We are only concerned about events before about 100CE (not 325CE). If you were
in court, your testimony would be immaterial.

the idea or fertile ground for the emergence of Christianity was established all during the extended Roman occupation of Palestine/Judea...

every generation of Jews, including semite indigenous peoples (some of which could have been heritage 'Lost' Israelites) had an uprising or
insurrection by zealots with a leader claiming to be some sort of messiah.

a sensible court of law would indeed hear my evidence even though it was based on Constantine in 325AD that formalized the once pagan/magical cult of
Jesus the Christ

The atheists say:
1. There's these forgeries - you see. (debatable).
2. There's these pagan gods - you see (debatable relationship)
3. The Christians just mixed them together and came up with Jesus - you see.

No, I don't see. Show me a "paper trail". Show me a time line. Show me something I can take to the grand jury. Connect the dots in a plausible
scenario of implementation. For example:

Several years ago there was a case involving a ex-football player charged with murdering his ex-wife (no need to name him). The prosecution built a
very effective scenario that it was plausible that the accused could have done the murder (he knew where she lived, he knew when she would be home, he
was physically fit enough to run the distance from her home to his house in the 10 minutes, etc.) The grand jury agreed that he could have very well
committed the murder and indicted him. Substitute my name for his, the grand jury would say "That guy couldn't cover a mile in 10 minutes even if
he was on a pair of roller skates; case dismissed".

But you MUST understand there is NO proof. That is why it is called FAITH. Even I, an "atheist" as labeled, understand that.

It is extremely hard to talk about this topic because of how personal faith is to people. I strive to be an open, questioning, human being. Of no
determinable faith, because it is, in my opinion, divisive. A divisive issue that will continue to be divisive until people start taking their faith
less personally, and actually doing some research themselves. Instead of demanding proof from others do some research, without your answer already
decided. If you've already decided on an answer, then STOP asking the question. But do not ask people for help and then slam their opinion because
you have already decided on an answer.

Ok, scrolling halfway down your source page, just because I thought I'd check, we have this quote:

"There is some debate among scholars over the authenticity of paragraph 3. Most scholars believe that the majority of the paragraph is authentic,
with a few crucial sentences inserted later by Christian scribes. Some scholars think that the entire paragraph is a later Christian insertion. A few
scholars believe that the entire passage is indeed authentic, and that Josephus himself wrote it down in the form seen here, without later revision.
(There is another shorter reference to Jesus in 20.9.1(200).)".

I'll tell you why, in my opinion, and I'm sorry I have never had a near-death experience to back up my claims with, just many many hours of research
and soul searching and questioning, there is no concrete evidence that Jesus lived as a HISTORICAL human being. There is none.

And all I am talking about is HISTORICALLY, not spiritually. But that opens a can o worms.....

[edit on 30-4-2010 by worlds_away]

I'm glad that's just your opinion because

"Some scholars think that the entire paragraph is a later Christian insertion."

It is extremely hard to talk about this topic because of how personal faith is to people. I strive to be an open, questioning, human being. Of no
determinable faith, because it is, in my opinion, divisive. A divisive issue that will continue to be divisive until people start taking their faith
less personally, and actually doing some research themselves. Instead of demanding proof from others do some research, without your answer already
decided. If you've already decided on an answer, then STOP asking the question. But do not ask people for help and then slam their opinion because
you have already decided on an answer.

t is extremely hard to talk about this topic because of how personal faith is to people. I strive to be an open, questioning, human being. Of no
determinable faith, because it is, in my opinion, divisive. A divisive issue that will continue to be divisive until people start taking their faith
less personally, and actually doing some research themselves. Instead of demanding proof from others do some research, without your answer already
decided. If you've already decided on an answer, then STOP asking the question. But do not ask people for help and then slam their opinion because
you have already decided on an answer.

You see I am looking for the skeptic response to how Christianity developed from "pagan beliefs" to its state around 100CE to 120CE. I want to hear
comments on where it started, who started it, when was it started. Not charges of forgery, etc. See my posting above.

I am of the opinion that Jesus did exist. I don't really believe he was the son of god though. I don't quite think christianity went from pagan to
christian. I was under the impression it went from judaism to christianity. Have you checked out the apocryphal texts? They are quite interesting to
read, and offer a few more slants on his life like him striking down the kids he did not get along with to learn the lesson of using his powers for
good not evil. There is also a lot more of John the Baptist and how he taught Jesus, which led to Jesus taking up his teachings. These were then
later homogonised to the later versions we are familiar with.

My own personal belief that fits is that Jesus existed as the leader of a Jewish cult that was big enough to transcend his death and have people still
attracted to it's belief system after his death. This cult then was warped and developed again and again until it was unrecognisable in its original
form. And please don't take my use of the word cult the wrong way. It is only meant as in the definition that it was an offshoot sect of judaism.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.